Project Fear at New Heights ?
The devious Bank of England does it again !
Reasonable heads are prevailing.
Brexiteers attacked the data and the bank itself, with Jacob Rees-Mogg saying: “It is unusual for the Bank of England to talk down the pound and shows the governor’s failure to understand his role. He is not there to create panic.”
Interesting website, the “”“Independent”"". The owners are Russian, and 30% of it is in the hands of Saudi Arabia.
The front page is an endless stream of:
Orange man bad
Migration from Africa/Middle East to Europe good
Look at these poor refuges
White people bad
Literally 0 mentions of Russia and Ukraine currently deploying troops around their border, with the Ukraine president even planning to impose martial law ahead of their elections. Apparently Neymar scoring a goal is more important.
In before:“Fake NEwsW!!12” I’m on the phone, Google is your friend and I already posted links in the Ukraine thread here on forumosa.
Not once, in my previous message, have I ever mentioned the Rees story. I simply pointed out that the way the “”“independent”"" reports their news has to be taken with a grain of salt, especially in the era of “everything is controlled by Russia!!!” and the new fotm “trump likes the Saudi, so Saudi Arabia is bad too!”.
So in your post about the independent you weren’t talking about the independent articles in the previous post. Silly me! I thought that you were referring to the discussion that you were apparently joining. How foolish of me to assume that!
(P.S. War in Yeman, price of coffee new rare elephant disease, other random facts, Pluto’s orbit etc. )
It seems to me like their way of reporting news is heavily biased and they decide to omit important things that they consider to be problematic and counterproductive to their narrative. So, if anyone uses the “”“independent”"" as main source of news, do you think that person will have a well informed opinion of the events?
And maybe even more important: considering the things they omit when they write opinion articles, do you think their coverage of brexit and the news in general takes under consideration the interest of the Uk citizens? They’re in theory* a Uk news website, so they should inform the Uk citizens about things that happen. When they report “wages are going up” but neglect to say the cause, why do you think they do it? They forgot? Or maybe because it would be bad for the “migration is good” meme?
= in theory, because considering that it’s owned by Russians and Saudis I doubt they give a flying duck about the Uk, but I guess that’s a good place for reliable news now?
Don’t worry, I have no interest in showing to you or other “Eu yes men” how things are, I know it won’t change your mind. I just think it’s important to give other people a different point of view, something that is not just “Brexit bad / Eu good”, and that seems to be ignored by the media that are often used here to report news about brexit.
I think my points about the biased reporting of the “”“independent”"" were fairly accurate and I also provided a link, but if that’s Swahili to you, then don’t worry about it. Orange man bad, Eu good, Uk bad.
A bloody mess. I own a UK based business selling to Europe. We have had to rejig it, so that means less bizniz in UK, and more in EU. Oh Well. Only silver lining is that as UK employees are paid in pounds, they are getting cheaper.
BoJo where art thou?
Where’s the 350 million squid?
“There will be no downside to Brexit, only a considerable upside,” said David Davis, who later have a brief stint as Brexit minister.
“The day after we vote to leave, we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want,” said Michael Gove, who would later become environment minister.
Given that her country had split almost 50-50 on the issue, she could have suggested a middle path: Leave the EU, sure, but remain as tightly bound to the group of nations as possible, like Norway. Nobody could prevent her doing that.
But she decided to take a different route.
May was home secretary before she became Britain’s leader. In the previous years, she had done a lot to create, as she called it, a “hostile environment” for immigrants. People close to her said this was the only subject the often-wooden politician was passionate about. Remaining too closely connected to the EU would mean the UK would have to continue tolerating mass immigration from the continent. May didn’t want that.
And so she chose the difficult option.
To the surprise of many, May formulated 12 clear goals at Lancaster House. The most important, in brief, were that the country was to exit the single market, get out of the customs union and out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. And foreigners? They were also to get out. In the future, the number of immigrants allowed into the country was to be no more than five figures.
Mistake No. 5: The Ireland Issue Won’t Be Decisive
The Brits’ fifth and most fatal mistake, however, lay just beyond their own front door, on the island of Ireland. As happens quite often in Britain, Ireland hardly played any role at all when the Brits held the Brexit referendum. In the minds of many Brexiteers dreaming of reclaiming the UK’s superpower status, the former colony was still a kind of backyard where, if in doubt, British rules would prevail.
The agenda is for the UK to remain.
The Swamp in the UK want it as does the EU swamp.
The EU does not want any leaving member to go it alone never mind with success.
Almost like the old Soviet system without the tanks.